nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

survey finds 49% of Americans believe in a medical conspiracy

[Deleted User]

An online survey found that 49% of Americans believe in at least one medical conspiracy theory from a choice of 6 with 18% believing at least 3!

So how many do you believe and do you think there is any genuine evidence to support these theories?

It's a zero for me.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/19/health-conspiracy-theories/6602775/

*Could a mod edit the title to say 49 % please.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Ohh god no ... Mostly working with or used preventive and some can be used instead ... But an alternative for all medicine as it stands I think not

Could you explain why you think natural remedies don't have side effects?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Could you explain why you think natural remedies don't have side effects?

Where did I talk about the side effects regarding natural remedies ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I wonder how many of the natural products would be approved for selling when they had a list of side effects found in pharma drugs

This one

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

It was regarding the vitamin C

That goes for supplements not antioxidants in food ... and there are some benefits research found regarding supplements ...

Why does this needs to be patent-able ? and what system where you thinking of

I repeat ... There is no profit to be made so Big pharma are not investing in it

Uhh the possible elimination of the horrendous side effects maybe ...

The plus side is that you can use natural products/remedies to prevent cancer (brocolli etc) and there re plenty more available

This one too

weisses

I was referring to the side effects in pharma drugs ... If these effects would have been evident in natural products they would be banned instantly

Unless there are some serious side effects eating broccoli

And just to point out I never claimed nor suggested there are no side effects with natural remedies ...

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I was referring to the side effects in pharma drugs ... If these effects would have been evident in natural products they would be banned instantly

Unless there are some serious side effects eating broccoli

And just to point out I never claimed nor suggested there are no side effects with natural remedies ...

Obesity with the quantities you'd need!

But the natural products that have a biological effect will also have side effects what makes you think they don't?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Obesity with the quantities you'd need!

Obese by broccoli ? The guy in the channel 4 doc looked slim to me

jh79 wrote: »

But the natural products that have a biological effect will also have side effects what makes you think they don't?

Again.... Where do I say they don't ?

[Deleted User]

If you are not claiming natural products don't have side effects why bring the subjects up?

Side effects are tolerated because the end result is overall beneficial

Side effects without proven medical benefits is just poisoning someone.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

If you are not claiming natural products don't have side effects why bring the subjects up?

Side effects are tolerated because the end result is overall beneficial

Side effects without proven medical benefits is just poisoning someone.

I brought up the horrendous Side effects associated with pharma drugs

Ohh good to know poisoning with proven medical benefits is allowed ... One could take more drugs to tackle the side effects of the other drugs .....

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I brought up the horrendous Side effects associated with pharma drugs

Ohh good to know poisoning with proven medical benefits is allowed ... One could take more drugs to tackle the side effects of the other drugs .....

What's the alternative?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What's the alternative?

Ohh that's a whole different topic ... Deserves a thread on its own somewhere

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Ohh that's a whole different topic ... Deserves a thread on its own somewhere

But sure they'll have side effects too or are you talking about people just looking after themselves more?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But sure they'll have side effects too or are you talking about people just looking after themselves more?

People need to look better after themselves ... Cannabis use can have some side effects ... euphoria was labelled as one of them

[Deleted User]

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/22/none-of-its-true-wellness-blogger-belle-gibson-admits-she-never-had-cancer

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/wellness-gurus-belle-gibson-pseudoscience

So Belle Gibson caused a bit of a stir ( don't why anyone believed her in the first place) by admitting she never had cancer in the first place.

So anyone here familiar with her and were they taken in by her?

Every time i read about a diet based cancer cure the believers never seem to care about medical records? Why is that?

Remember one where the woman said she didn't need to go back to the doctor to see if the cancer was gone she just knew ffs!

So are Belle Gibson, GOOP and others mentioned in the 2nd link representative of the "wellness" bloggers out there and does anyone on here believe in them?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/22/none-of-its-true-wellness-blogger-belle-gibson-admits-she-never-had-cancer

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/wellness-gurus-belle-gibson-pseudoscience

So Belle Gibson caused a bit of a stir ( don't why anyone believed her in the first place) by admitting she never had cancer in the first place.

So anyone here familiar with her and were they taken in by her?

Every time i read about a diet based cancer cure the believers never seem to care about medical records? Why is that?

Remember one where the woman said she didn't need to go back to the doctor to see if the cancer was gone she just knew ffs!

So are Belle Gibson, GOOP and others mentioned in the 2nd link representative of the "wellness" bloggers out there and does anyone on here believe in them?

#

Never heard of her

Just another person who is not mentally stable probably ..Attention seeker

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

#

Never heard of her

Just another person who is not mentally stable probably ..Attention seeker

I'd say money was the main motivation. Seems like there is a lot of gullible people with money out there and she exploited this for as much and as long as she could.

[Deleted User]

Colleges that offer naturopath and homeopath courses should be banned surely there is some legal means to do this?

Is there any justification for their existence?

Or would this help feed the paranoia about big pharma / food that seems to make people believe almost anything?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Colleges that offer naturopath and homeopath courses should be banned surely there is some legal means to do this?

Is there any justification for their existence?

Or would this help feed the paranoia about big pharma / food that seems to make people believe almost anything?

Why would one ban accupuncture ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Why would one ban accupuncture ?

I mean "colleges" that offer diplomas in naturopathic health that consist of modules of various types of pseudoscience.

Accupuncture if I remember correctly was shown to be more effective than placebo but that it didn't matter where the pins went so a 5 minute demo in pin insertion would suffice.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

I'd say money was the main motivation. Seems like there is a lot of gullible people with money out there and she exploited this for as much and as long as she could.

IT could easily be that she bought into the whole thing and believes it. There are thousands upon thousands of people that believe "healthy eating" or a specific diet will cure diseases, despite the fact they're talking about foods that people would have had no choice but to eat in the past and they didn't have extended lifespans.

If they pay out to do courses they've obviously bought into the hype, making money from other people would just be confirmation bias.

The fact she admits she doesn't know how cancer works shows she's just working from ignorance and relying on misinformation. It could well be she had a lump somewhere that was a common skin infection and she linked her diet to it's inevitable dissipation. So perhaps she really thought she had some type of cancer in her ignorance.

Lay people believing they have the same level of knowledge as an expert is common these days. We get a lot of information thrown at us and we seem to assume that because we have a lot of information we must know what we're talking about. We don't take into account we've just gotten a simplified version of events from one particular point of view that doesn't take into account all the other variables that don't get mentioned.

[Deleted User]

Anyone watching Trust me I'm a Doctor?

Small piece on organic v non organic veg. No advantages in buying organic in terms of pesticide levels or nutritional value . Nutrients are lost quickly even over a matter of days but frozen veg retained the nutrients.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Anyone watching Trust me I'm a Doctor?

Small piece on organic v non organic veg. No advantages in buying organic in terms of pesticide levels or nutritional value . Nutrients are lost quickly even over a matter of days but frozen veg retained the nutrients.

Proper frozen Veg or fresh from the Farmers market is the best imo

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Proper frozen Veg or fresh from the Farmers market is the best imo

Can't remember what they measured but fresh and frozen were the same but 4 day old had dropped by around 15%!

They also did aldehyde levels in cooking oils and fat and lard came out best!